All EOS blogs All Spain blogs  Start your own blog Start your own blog 

Mac's Poll - Let's Vote

Curious to know what the general opinion is? Cast your vote and let's see!!

POLL: Do you think that Strasbourg is correct in ruling against Spain's Parot Doctrine?
Wednesday, October 23, 2013 @ 11:48 AM

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has struck down Spain’s “Parot doctrine” – a legal way to ensure terrorists and other long-term convicts are not released significantly before the end of their terms.

In agreement with an appeal against her prolonged stay in prison, convicted ETA terrorist Inés del Río was released this week due to the Strasbourg court’s ruling, which also means that 61 ETA prisoners and at least 14 common criminals could be released immediately amongst them rapists, paedophiles and murderers. Seventy-six other Basque terrorists could benefit from the decision in the mid-to-long term, according to the Spanish Interior Ministry.

A spokesman for the court noted that the ruling is binding and that Spain has agreed to abide by it. He also said that although the ruling does not enter into an evaluation of other pending cases, it establishes that the retroactive nature of the Parot doctrine that extended Del Río’s jail term constitutes an “illegal detention.”

By unanimous decision the 17-member panel of the ECHR deemed that the decision taken by Spanish courts to keep Del Río in prison had violated Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the lawful detention of individuals. It also cited Article 7, which prohibits a “heavier penalty” from being imposed than at the time when a crime was committed. It also noted that Article 9 of the Spanish Constitution also bars laws from being applied retroactively.

The ECHR ordered the government to “ensure that the applicant is released at the earliest possible date”

The Parot doctrine was introduced by the Supreme Court in 2006 to prevent criminals with long convictions from walking free early thanks to the 1973 Criminal Code, which allowed term reductions for participating in workshops and courses from the maximum prison term of 30 years. Instead, under the Parot doctrine, benefits are deducted from each of the counts on which the prisoner was convicted.

Del Río was sentenced to more than 3,000 years in jail for taking part in ETA’s so-called “Commando Madrid” cell, and her role in 23 murders.

An ECHR spokesman said on Monday that the ruling is binding for Spain, that it sets legal precedent and that the Spanish authorities must accept and apply it. The retroactive application of the doctrine to keep Del Río in prison was in fact an “illegal detention” that contravened the European Convention on Human Rights, according to the court’s ruling.

The ECHR also ordered the government by 10 votes to seven to pay Del Río 30,000 euros in compensation and pay her 1,500 euros in costs.

The court noted that the Spanish courts’ departure from case law had delayed her release from prison by almost nine years. “She has, therefore, served a longer term of imprisonment than she should have served under the domestic legislation in force at the time of her conviction,” it said. The ECHR, by 16 votes to one, ordered the Spanish government to “ensure that the applicant is released at the earliest possible date.”

The penal chamber of Spain’s High Court is due to hold an extraordinary plenary situation to resolve the issue of Del Río’s release on Tuesday morning.

At a Monday afternoon news conference together with Interior Minister Jorge Fernández-Díaz, Justice Minister Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón lamented the ECHR’s ruling. “We have used all the resources available in order for the doctrine to remain in place,” he said. “Someone who kills 20 people cannot have the same legal sentence as someone who committed only one murder.”

Gallardón also said that the compensation the ECHR ordered the government to pay to Del Río would be covered by the compensation that the ETA terrorist should have paid to the victims of her crimes. Del Río declared herself insolvent. “The state advanced the compensation. It’s a debt the ETA member has incurred with the state.”

Ángeles Pedraza, the chairwoman of the AVT association of terrorism victims, said: “There will be protests.”

Do you think the ECHR was correct in its ruling? Please cast your vote and leave a comment 

 



Like 1




24 Comments


windtalker said:
Wednesday, October 23, 2013 @ 11:26 AM

a simple yes or no answer would help I am totally confuse


mac75 said:
Wednesday, October 23, 2013 @ 11:40 AM

Point taken. limited it to YES or NO for these main reasons :-)


MANXMONKEY said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 5:22 AM

Too complicated a subject to vote without leaving a comment as to why I vote Yes. This is a subject which involves legal; moral and political views. Morally and politically I probably feel the ECHR should stay out of interfering with the laws passed by modern democratic governments. However in this case we have the problem that the law has effectively been enacted retroactively and that is unacceptable. Gordon Brown got away with it and that was shameful but I think it is now accepted that it is wrong to allow. Regarding ETA and any other terrorist criminals there are laws which enable the control of known or suspected terrorists to be monitored and controlled and of course perpetrators of new crimes are subject to new laws.



MANXMONKEY said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 5:23 AM

Too complicated a subject to vote without leaving a comment as to why I vote Yes. This is a subject which involves legal; moral and political views. Morally and politically I probably feel the ECHR should stay out of interfering with the laws passed by modern democratic governments. However in this case we have the problem that the law has effectively been enacted retroactively and that is unacceptable. Gordon Brown got away with it and that was shameful but I think it is now accepted that it is wrong to allow. Regarding ETA and any other terrorist criminals there are laws which enable the control of known or suspected terrorists to be monitored and controlled and of course perpetrators of new crimes are subject to new laws.



MANXMONKEY said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 5:24 AM

Ouch, sorry about double entry!



Justice said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 8:11 AM

If just yes or no, then certainly NO!
The ECHR , as it is at present, should be ignored by all civilised countries as it is too concerned with the " letter" of the law instead of the "spirit" of the law - a case of, as usual, a very welcome concept being misused by pedants!


HAWKINGS111 said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 8:39 AM

Will only make an indepth comment on this subject when victims human rights are talked about rather than criminals human rights.


Ben said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 8:54 AM

I think criminals should loose all their human rights for what they have done.


Bob gowen said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 9:11 AM

Totally agree with Ben.Dealing with terrorists is a totally different situation to other offenders


Brian said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 9:28 AM

If Spain makes a ruling within its country and by its elected government it should be upheld. The EU interferes far too much and with far too much power.



Martin said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 9:38 AM

A useful law for multiple premeditated murderers would be the death sentence thus eliminating the possibility of future idiot do-gooders having them released, and to rub salt in the wound giving them thousands in compensation. Is there a difference between victim and perpetrator? Yes the perpetrator has more rights!


Peter said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 11:06 AM

I totally agree with the reaction of the Asociacion de Victimas de Terrorismo.
I am surprised by the speed with which the Spanish govt complied with the Court's ruling - don't they have a right to appeal, or have they already done that ?At least they showed some support for the AVT . I can only think that they feel they are on weak ground being a country with right wing govt and a" fascist " history against the 17 "judges". It is worth reading up on the bios of these 17 - none of them appear to be outstanding jurists,.


GaryB said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 11:10 AM

I found that I didn't need Human Rights, until I got them. Now I've got them it seems they don't apply to me as I uphold the rule of law.


KATHY GREENE said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 12:32 PM

As the old saying goes "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". It is despicable that the law, wherever you live seems to consider the perpetrators more than the victims. Something is seriously wrong!!!!!


KATHY G said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 12:37 PM

As the old saying goes "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". It seems that the law wherever you live considers the perpetrators rights (how the hell they still have any God only knows) rather than the victims. Something is seriously wrong somewhere!!!!!


KATHY G said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 12:45 PM

As the old saying goes "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". It is absolutely despicable that the law wherever you live considers the perpetrators rights (how the hell they still have any God only knows) rather than the victims. Something is seriously wrong !!!!!


ufotour said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 12:48 PM

Think the terrorist in question had already done about 24 years - a similar amount to what a "lifer" would get in Britain. These 3,000 year sentences are absurd when the true maximum is 30 years.


KATHY G said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 12:48 PM

Can you tell I'm a novice at this sort of thing????? I have tried deleting two of my comments but it won't let me do it. Technology - not my favourite subject. Sorry about that!!



PJ said:
Saturday, October 26, 2013 @ 2:34 PM

This is a far to complex subject to answer with a Y/N question. I think 25 y is a long time and quite a punishment. I have a hard time believing that after you get out, you will start bombing again. You will try to repair what is left of your life.

They are criminals, no doubt, but they did it out of conviction. It can change.

When it comes to child molestors and rapists, that is a whole different thing. While liberal for other offendors, here I am in favor for the death penalty - they will never change.


Graham E said:
Monday, October 28, 2013 @ 8:57 AM

Spain is a country with laws what has happened is against those Spanish laws. I hate it but she has to be freed if not what next, summary execution, people simply disappearing? The law has to prevail over everything else, without the law you have Hitler, Stalin and yes Franco.


HAWKINGS111 said:
Monday, October 28, 2013 @ 10:01 AM

I see your point Graham E.
What i think most of us do when giving our opinions is we dont put ourselves in the victims position.

If one of our very close relatives were to have died in "the twin towers" almost without exception we would say execute them or if you have to inprison them, throw away the key.

The trouble is when it happens to strangers and does not affect us directly we seem to have a different opinion as to what should be done.

We would feel completely different if it were our husband or wife who were murdered, but why should we? We are all brothers and sisters in this world.


pat lee said:
Monday, October 28, 2013 @ 12:48 PM

getting away with 23 known murders and god knows how many more , well yes god knows and Strasburg doesn't , poor Europe


pat lee said:
Monday, October 28, 2013 @ 12:55 PM

hi Graham e surely ETA, Al Qaida, IRA and the rest are a much more viable option than Hitler, etc...

Hope you never are a victim , so you can live by your comment
and be proud of it .... enjoy Spain ¡¡¡


Alex27 said:
Sunday, December 1, 2013 @ 11:02 PM

This situation only happens in Spain. This woudn´t be allowed in any other country in the EU. If this would have happened in England , these criminals would still be locked up. It´s easy to have an opinion without really empathizing with the family victims. I´d like to see if one of the members from the ECHR had lost a family member through the hands of one of the released criminals.


Leave a comment

You don't have to be registered to leave a comment but it's quicker and easier if you are (and you also can get notified by email when others comment on the post). Please Sign In or Register now.

Name *
Spam protection: 
 
Your comment * (HTML not allowed)

(Items marked * are required)



 

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x